4 Monday, June 18, 2007 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com thie ltidyigau 43aiI~ Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu GARY GRACA EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR IMRAN SYED EDITOR IN CHIEF Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. A hand for footbaths University footbaths satisfy student needs ootbaths are generally unassuming bathroom fixtures that are sometimes found in bathrooms. You wouldn't expect them to cause too much con- troversy - that is, until you add that Muslims use them before praying. This is exactly what has happened at the University's Dearborn campus, where a simple plan to accommodate Muslim students by installingfootbaths has exploded into an unnecessary debate about the Establish- ment Clause, religious privilege and University spending. TRAVIS SCHAU - Git-mo must g Judicial branch right to check Bush's power in Guantanamo Bay 4 In its current form, the propos- al would install footbaths in bath- rooms as part of a larger building renovation. The entire bathroom renovation would cost $100,000, $25,000 of which would go to the installation of the footbaths. For Muslim students, whose religion traditionally requires them to wash their feet before praying, the footbaths could make life a lot easier. Predictably,the plan has caused a great uproar in the conservative consortium, which claims that these accommodations consti- tute a violation of the separation of church and state. According to their logic, the University is a state-funded body that is giving privilege to a religious group. But this argument only shows how little these people know about the First Amendment. No one would be excluded from using the footbaths. Therefore, installing them in no way equates to the government forcing a cho- sen religion onto the public. If you want to see that sort of a violation, try looking at the Bush administration's stances on gay marriage or abortion. Addition- ally, the project's budget comes from student fees for building maintenance, meaning that state funding will not be appropriated for the project. Yes, the plan costs money - money that many people think that the University shouldn't be spending. But what the Uni- versity is doing in Dearborn is the same thing it does at all its campuses: accommodates stu- dents' religious needs. Here in Ann Arbor, dining halls pro- vide special meal accommoda- tions during Lent and Passover and students can be excused for religious holidays if they pro- vide appropriate documentation. Twenty-five thousand dollars is a small price to pay to give Muslim students the same treatment. One has to wonder why con- servatives are up in arms about the footbaths and not these other accommodations. Unfortunately, when you consider that Muslims are frequently the subjects of dis- crimination in our country, this maybe less of a civil liberties issue and more an issue of discrimina- tion. The University should not let these criticisms alter its plans or hinder it from meeting the needs of its students. or the roughly 680 pris- oners at Guantanamo Bay, life is both a hell of mistreatment and a legal purga- tory that keeps them from chal- lenging their detention. Because of two recent decisions, though, the Bush administration's ille- gal policies of detaining people indefinitely and denying them basic human rights have inched closer to their demise. But the judiciary still has its limits; nowit's Congress'sturnto replace the 2006 law that allows the president unlimited author- ity in his war on terror and, more importantly, end the disgrace that is Guantanamo Bay. The first of the two decisions was passed down two weeks ago by two military judges, who ruled that only prisoners labeled as "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military com- missions created by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. More specifically, the justices dis- missed the war crimes charges against two Guantanamo prison- ers because the Pentagon could only prove that they were "enemy combatants."One ofthese prison- ers was Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden's chauffeur and the plaintiff in the 2006 Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which struck down Bush's mili- tary courts. The other decision came last Monday, when the 4th U.S. Cir- cuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who was a foreigner legally staying in America, had the right to be tried in a civilian court. Like many other Guantanamo pris- oners, al-Marri was sent to the detention camp on suspicions that he was a "sleeper agent" for Al Qaeda. Monday's deci- sion doesn't mean that al-Marri is innocent, but rather that Bush cannot take away his right to a timely trial because al-Marri was legally in America. Together, these two deci- sions represent another string of defeats in the Bush administra- tion's invisible and unlawful war. While the Geneva Conventions detail the appropriate treatment of prisoners of war from states, there is no such precedent for the treatment of stateless pris- oners. In response, the Bush administration combined mili- tary rules with civilian judicial process - conveniently selecting the methods of prosecution best suited for expedient conviction or prolonged imprisonment. Meanwhile, Congress dis- regarded its duty to check the executive branch by approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006, failing to pass an amend- ment to give Guantanamo pris- oners the right to habeas corpus. Instead ofcheckingthe authority of the president, the law codified the president's previous policies of torture and imprisonment, transforming Guantanamo Bay into a permanent solution because Congress couldn't come up with a better one. But a better solution has always existed: close Guanta- namo Bay and reaffirm the basic human right to a fair and timely trial in a civilian court for every- one, regardless of combatant sta- tus. The judicial branch has been getting closer to this solution, but it is limited by the absence of a Congressional law to interpret. Atthe very least, Congress has an obligation to replace the Mil- itary Commissions Act of 2006 because it has a constitutional role to check the excesses of the president. But more important- ly, Congress should be reaffirm- ing America's role as a leader in human rights. Closing Guantanamo will be a great start. 6 0 0 Editorial Board Members: Mike Eber, Jennifer Sussex, Kate Truesdell, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner